The handle http://hdl.handle.net/1887/50157 holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation.
Author: Mair, C.S.
Title: Taking technological infrastructure seriously
Issue Date: 2017-06-29
I. BOOKS
Aoki M, Toward a Comparative Institutional Analysis (MIT Press 2011)
Arthur WB, Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy (University of Michigan Press 1994) Arthur WB, The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves (Penguin 2009)
Benkler Y, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom (Yale UP 2006) Bowles S, Microeconomics : Behavior, Institutions, and Evolution (Russell Sage Foundation 2004)
Bright Jr. A, The Electric-Lamp Industry: Technological Change and Economic Development from 1800 to 1947 (MIT, 1949)
Cabral LM, Introduction to Industrial Organization (MIT Press 2000) Ceruzzi PE, A History of Modern Computing (MIT Press 2003)
Chesbrough H, Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology (Harvard Business School Press 2003)
Colander DC and Kupers R, Complexity and the Art of Public Policy: Solving Society’s Problems from the Bottom up (Princeton University Press 2016)
Evans DS, Hagiu A and Schmalensee R, Invisible Engines: How Software Platforms Drive Innovation and Transform Industries (MIT Press 2008)
Frischmann BM, Infrastructure: the Social Value of Shared Resources (Oxford University Press 2012) Gawer A, Platform Leadership: How Intel, Microsoft and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation (Harvard Business
School Press 2005)
Hennessy J and Patterson D, Computer Architecture (Morgan Kaufmann 2012)
Kaseberg T, Intellectual Property, Antitrust and Cumulative Innovation in the EU and the US (Hart Publishing Ltd 2012)
Komesar NK, Imperfect Alternatives: Choosing Institutions in Law, Economics, and Public Policy (University of Chicago Press 1996)
Kuhn TS, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd edn, University of Chicago Press 1970)
Link AN and Scott JT, Public Goods, Public Gains: Calculating the Social Benefits of Public R&D (Oxford University Press 2010)
Mazzucato M, The Entrepreneurial State (Demos 2011)
Nenni D and McLellan P, Fabless: The Transformation of the Semiconductor Industry (SemiWiki 2013) Ostrom E and Hess C, Understanding Knowledge as a Commons (MIT Press 2011)
Park JH, Patents and Industry Standards (Edward Elgar Publishing 2010) Pigou A, The Economics of Welfare (4th edn, Palgrave Macmillan Co 1932) Popper K, Conjectures and Refutations (2nd edn, Routledge 1963) Posner R, Natural Monopoly and its Regulation (Cato Institute 1999) Raymond ES, The Cathedral and the Bazaar (O’Reilly Media 1999)
Rose D, Enchanted Objects: Innovation, Design, and the Future of Technology (Scribner 2014) Ryan J, A History of the Internet and the Digital Future (Reaktion Books Ltd 2010) Schumpeter J, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (Routledge 2003)
Siewicz K, Towards an Improved Regulatory Framework of Free Software (EM Meijers Instituut 2009) Skyrms B, Evolution of the Social Contract (CUP 1996)
Skyrms B, Social Dynamics (OUP 2014)
Skyrms B, The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Structure (CUP 2004)
Sterelny K, The Evolved Apprentice: How Evolution Made Humans Unique (MIT Press 2012)
Tuomi I, Networks of Innovation: Change and Meaning in the Age of the Internet (Oxford University Press 2002)
Van Overwalle G, Gene Patents and Collaborative Licensing Models: Patent Pools, Clearinghouses, Open Source Modls and Liability Regimes (Cambridge University Press 2009)
Waldron J, The Right to Private Property (Oxford University Press 1990)
II. BOOK CONTRIBUTIONS
Arrow KJ, ‘Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention’ in National Bureau for Economic Research, The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors (Princeton University Press 1962)
Basberg BL “Patents and the Measurement of Technological Change: A Survey of the Literature,”
Research Policy. Pavitt, Keith (1988), “Uses and Abuses of Patent Statistics,” A. F. J. van Raan (ed). Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology. (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1987)
Bogers M, Bekkers R & Granstrand O, ‘Intellectual Property and Licensing Strategies in Open Collaborative Innovation’ in C de Pablos Heredero and D López (eds), Open Innovation in Firms and Public Administrations: Technologies for Value Creation (Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2012)
Brooks R and Geradin D, ‘Taking Contracts Seriously: The Meaning of the Voluntary Commitment to Licence Essential Patents on “Fair and Reasonable” Terms’ in S Anderman and A Ezrachi (eds), Intellectual Property and Competition Law: New Frontiers (OUP 2011)
Dolmans M, ‘Standard Setting – The Interplay with IP and Competition Laws’ in HC Hansen (ed), Intellectual Property Law and Policy (vol 11, Hart Publishing 2010)
Dreyfuss RC, ‘Varying the Course in Patenting Genetic Material: A Counter-Proposal to Richard Epstein’s Steady Course’ in FS Kieff (ed), Perspectives on Properties of the Human Genome Project (Elsevier 2003)
Economides N, ‘Antitrust Issues In Network Industries’ in I Kokkoris and I Lianos (eds), The Reform of EC Competition Law (Kluwer 2008)
Economides N, ‘Competition Policy in Network Industries: An Introduction’ in DW Jansen (ed), The New Economy and Beyond: Past, Present Future (Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd 2006)
Farrell J and Klemperer P, ‘Coordination and Lock-in: Competition with Switching Costs and Network Effects’ in M Armstrong and R Porter (eds), Handbook of Industrial Organization (Elsevier 2007) Fisher W, ‘Theories of Intellectual Property’ in S Munzer (ed), New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory
of Property (Cambridge University Press 2001)
Geradin D, ‘What’s Wrong with Royalties in High-Technology Industries?’ in G A Manne and J D Wright (eds), Competition Policy and Patent Law under Uncertainty (CUP 2011).
Ghosh S, ‘How to Build a Commons: Is Intellectual Property Constrictive, Facilitating, or Irrelevant?’ in C Hess and E Ostrom (eds), Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice’ (MIT Press 2007)
Kieff FS, ‘On the Economics of Patent Law and Policy’ in T Takenaka (ed), Patent Law and Theory: A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Edgar Elgin Publishing Ltd 2008)
Shapiro C, ‘Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools and Standard-Setting’ in AB Jaffe, J Lerner and S Stern (eds), Innovation Policy and the Economy 1 (MIT Press 1998)
Simcoe T, ‘Open Standards and Intellectual Property Rights’ in H Chesbrough, W Vanhaverbeke and J West (eds), Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm (OUP 2008)
III. JOURNAL ARTICLES
A. PrintAbramowicz M, ‘The Danger of Underdeveloped Patent Prospects’ (2007) 92 Cornell L Rev 1065 Acemoglu D, Gancia G and Zilibotti FE, ‘Competing Engines of Growth: Innovation and Standardization’
(2012) 147(2) J Econ Theory 570
Ahlborn C, Evans DS and Padilla AJ, ‘The Logic & Limits of the “Exceptional Circumstances Test” in Magill and IMS Health’ (2004) 28 Fordham Intl LJ 1109
Anderson P and Tushman ML, ‘Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change’ (1990) 35(4) Administrative Science Quarterly 604
Andreangeli A, ‘Case T-201/04, Microsoft v. Commission, Judgment of the Grand Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 17 September 2007’ (2008) 45(3) Common Market L Rev 863
Areeda P, ‘Essential Facilities: An Epithet in Need of Limiting Principles’ (1989) 58(3) Antitrust L J 841 Arrow KJ, ‘Technical Information and Industrial Structure’ (1996) 5(2) Indus & Corp Change 645 Arthur WB, ‘Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, And Lock-In By Historical Events’ (1989)
99 Econ J 116
Arthur WB, ‘The Structure of Invention’ (2007) 36 Research Policy 274
Arutyunyan, A, ‘Intellectual Property Law vs. Essential Facility Doctrine. Microsoft vs. Commission’
(2008) 4 Proceedings of the Institute for European Studies 167
Ayres I and Klemperer P, ‘Limiting Patentees’ Market Power Without Reducing Innovation Incentives:
The Perverse Benefits of Uncertainty and Non-Injunctive Remedies’ (1999) Yale Faculty Scholarship Series Paper 1256
Ayres I and Talley E, ‘Solomonic Bargaining: Dividing a Legal Entitlement to Facilitate Coasean Trade’
(1995) 104 Yale LJ 1027
Barnett JM, ‘Property as Process: How Innovation Markets Select Innovation Regimes’ (2009) 119(3) Yale LJ 384
Barnett JM, ‘The Host’s Dilemma: Strategic Forfeiture in Platform Markets for Informational Goods’
(2011) 124(8) Harv L Rev 1861
Barnett JM, ‘The Illusion of the Commons’ (2010) 25(4) Berkeley Tech LJ 1751
Basu S and Fernald JG, ‘Information and Communications Technology as a General Purpose Technology: Evidence from U.S. Industry Data’ (2008) FRBSF Econ Rev 1
Benkler Y, ‘Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm’ (2002) 112(3) Yale LJ 369
Benkler Y, ‘Free As the Air to Common Use: First Amendment Constraints on Enclosure of the Public Domain’ (1999) 74 New York U Law Rev 354
Bessen SM ‘Why Royalties for Standard Essential Patents Should Not Be Set By The Courts’ (2016) 15(1) Chic.-Kent J. Intellect. Prop.
Binmore K and Klemperer P, ‘The Biggest Auction Ever: The Sale of the British 3G Telecom Licences’
(2002) 112 Econ J 74
Bowles S and Choi JK, ‘Coevolution of Farming And Private Property During The Early Holocene’
(2013) 110(22) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 8830
Boyle J, ‘Open Source Innovation, Patent Injunctions, and the Public Interest’ (2012) 388 Duke L & Tech Rev 30
Boyle J, ‘The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain (2003) 6 Law and Contemporary Problems 33
Burk DL, ‘The Inventive Concept in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l’ (2014) 45 Intl Rev IP & Comp L 865 Caplan P, ‘Patents and Open Standards’ (2003) 14(4) Information Standards Quarterly 1
Carlino GA and Carr J, ‘Clusters of Knowledge: R&D Proximity and the Spillover Effect’ (2013) (Q3) Business Review 11
Carroll MA, ‘One Size Does Not Fit All: A Framework for Tailoring Intellectual Property Rights’ (2009) 70(6) Ohio St LJ 1361
Chapatte P, ‘FRAND Commitments – The Case for Antitrust Intervention’ (2009) 5(2) Eur Comp J 319 Chia TH, ‘Fighting The Smartphone Patent War With RAND-Encumbered Patents’ (2012) 27(4)
Berkeley Tech LJ 211
Chien CV, ‘From Arms Race to Marketplace: The Complex Patent Ecosystem and Its Implications for the Patent System’ (2010) 62 Hastings LJ 297
Clarkson G and DeKorte D, ‘The Problem of Patent Thickets in Convergent Technologies’ (2006) 1093 Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 180
Cohen JE and Lemley MA, ‘Patent Scope in the Software Industry’ (2001) 89(1) California L Rev 1 Contreras JL, ‘A Brief History Of FRAND: Analyzing Current Debates In Standard Setting And
Antitrust Through A Historical Lens’ 80 Antitrust Law Journal No. 1 (2015)
Contreras, JL, ‘A Market Reliance Theory For FRAND Commitments and Other Types of Patent Pledges’ (2015) Utah Law Review 479
Contreras, JL, ‘A Tale of Two Layers: Patents, Standardization, and the Internet’ (2016) Denver Law Review
Contreras, JL, ‘Confronting the Crisis in Scientific Publishing: Latency, Licensing and Access’ (2013) 53 Santa Clara Law Review 491
Contreras JL, ‘Patent Pledges’ (2015) 47(3) Ariz St L J 543
Contreras JL‘Technical Standards And “Ex Ante” Disclosure: Results And Analysis Of An Empirical Study’ (2013) Jurimetrics 53( 2)
Contreras, JL, ‘When A Stranger Calls: Standards Outsiders and Unencumbered Patents’ Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 1–33
Cottrell T, ‘Fragmented Standards and the Development of Japan’s Microcomputer Software Industry’
(1994) 23 Research Policy 143
Cozzarin BP, Lee W and Koo B, ‘Sony’s Redemption: The Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD Standards War’ (2012) 30(4) Prometheus 377
Crafts N, ‘Steam as a General Purpose Technology: A Growth Accounting Perspective’ (2004) 114(495) Econ J 338
Cseres KJ, ‘The Controversies of the Consumer Welfare Standard’ (2007) 3(2) Competition L Rev 121 Dagnino GB, ‘Understanding the Economics of Ricardian, Chamberlinian and Schumpeterian Rents –
Implications for Strategic Management’ (1996) 43(1) Intl Rev Econ 213
Daniel Kahneman, Jack L Knetsch and Richard H Thaler, ‘Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias’ (1991) 5(1) J Econ Perspectives 193
David PA and Hall BH, ‘Heart of Darkness: Modeling Public–Private Funding Interactions Inside The R&D Black Box’ (2000) 29 Research Policy 1165
David, Hall, Toole ‘Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence’ (2000) Research Policy 29
Demsetz H, ‘Barriers to Entry’ (1982) 72(1) Am Econ Rev 47
Demsetz H, ‘Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint’ (1969) 12(1) J L & Econ Demsetz H, ‘Toward a Theory of Property Rights’ (1967) 57(2) Am Econ Rev 347
Dequiedt V and Versaevel B, ‘Patent Pools and Dynamic R&D Incentives’ (2013) 36 International Review of Law and Economics 59
Doherty B, ‘Just What are Essential Facilities?’ (2001) 38 CM L Rev 397
Dolmans M, ‘A Tale of Two Tragedies – A Plea for Open Standards’ (2010) 2(2) IFOSS L Rev 115 Easterbrook FH, ‘The Limits of Antitrust’ (1984) 63 Texas L Rev 1
Eisenberg RS and Rai AK, ‘Bayh-Dole Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine’ (2003) 662(1) Law and Contemporary Problems 289
Eisenberg RS, ‘Public Research and Private Development: Patents and Technology Transfer in Government- Sponsored Research’ (1996) 82(8) Virginia L Rev 1663
Elhauge E, ‘Tying, Bundled Discounts, and the Death of the Single Monopoly Profit Theory’ (2009) 123(2) Harv L Rev 399
Epstein RA, ‘Why There Is Too Little, Not Too Much, Private Property’ (2011) 53 Arizona L Rev 51 Ewing T and Feldman R, ‘The Giants Among Us’ (2012) 1 Stan Tech L Rev 1
Farmer JD and Lafond F, ‘How Predictable is Technological Progress?’ (2016) 45 Research Policy 647 First H, ‘Controlling the Intellectual Property Grab : Protect Innovation, Not Innovators. Public Interest’
(2003) 38 Rutgers LJ 365
Frischmann B and Waller SW, ‘Revitalizing Essential Facilities’ (2008) 75(1) Antitrust LJ 1
Frischmann BM and Lemley MA, ‘Spillovers’, (2007) 107 Columbia Law Review 257 <http://www.
jstor.org/stable/40041712>
Frischmann BM, ‘An Economic Theory of Infrastructure and Commons Management’ (2005) 89 Minn L Rev 917
Frischmann BM, ‘Evaluating the Demsetzian Trend in Copyright Law’, (2007) 3(3) Rev L & Econ 2 Gal MS, ‘Monopoly Pricing as an Antitrust Offense in the U.S. and the EC: Two Systems of Belief about
Monopoly’ (2004) 49(2) Antitrust Bulletin 343
Geradin D, ‘Pricing Abuses by Essential Patent Holders in a Standard-setting Context: A View from Europe’ (2009) 76(1) Antitrust LJ 329
Ghosh S, ‘Patents and the Regulatory State: Rethinking the Patent Bargain Metaphor after Eldred’, (2004) 19(4) Berkeley Tech LJ 1315
Ghosh S, ‘Komesar’s Razor: Comparative Institutional Analysis in a World of Networks’ (2013) Wisconsin L Rev 455
Ghosh S, ‘Patent Law and the Assurance Game: Refitting Intellectual Property in the Box of Regulation’
(2005) 18(2) Canadian JL & Juris 1315
Gintis H, ‘The Evolution of Private Property’ (2007) 64(1) J Econ Behavior & Org 1
Gleeson NC and Walden I, ‘“It’s a Jungle Out There’?: Cloud Computing, Standards and the Law’ (2014) 5(2) Eur J L & Tech 1
Goettler R and Gordon B, ‘Does AMD Spur Intel to Innovate More?’ (2011) 119(6) J Pol Econ 1141
Gray R and Banie D, ‘Intergraph Corporation v. Intel Corporation’ (2000) 16(2) Santa Clara High Tech LJ 437
Greenbaum E, ‘Open Source Semiconductor Core Licensing’ (2011) 25(1) Harv J L & Tech 131 Grindley PC and Teece DJ, ‘Managing Intellectual Capital’ (1997) 39(2) Cal Management Rev 1 Hall BH and Ham RM, ‘The Patent Paradox Revisited: Determinants of Patenting in the US
Semiconductor Industry, 1980-94’ (2001) 32 RAND Journal of Economics 101 Hamilton WH, ‘Affectation with Public Interest’ (1930) 39(8) Yale L J 1089 Hardin G, ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’ (1968) 162 Science 1243
Harris C and Vickers J, ‘Patent Races and the Persistence of Monopoly’ (1985) 33(4) J Indus Econ 461 Hayek FA ‘The Use of Knowledge in Society’ (1945) 35(4) Am Econ Rev 519
Hayek FA ‘Competition as a Discovery Procedure’ (1968), republished in The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 5(3)
Hemel JD and Ouellette LL, ‘Beyond the Patents-Prizes Debate’ (2013) 92(2) Texas L Rev 303 Hicks JR, ‘Annual Survey of Economic Theory: The theory of Monopoly’ (1935) 3(1) Econometrica 1 Hovenkamp HJ, ‘The Obama Administration and Section 2 of the Sherman Act’ (2010) 90 Boston U L
Rev 1611
Jones A, ‘Standard-Essential Patents: FRAND Commitments, Injunctions and the Smartphone Wars’
(2014) 10(1) Eur Comm J 1
Kapczynski K, ‘The Cost of Price: Why and How to Get Beyond Intellectual Property Internalism’
(2012) 59 UCLa L Rev 970
Kattan J, ‘FRAND Wars and Section 2’ (2013) 27(3) Antitrust 30
Katz ML and Shalanski HA, ‘“Schumpeterian” Competition and Antitrust Policy in High Tech markets’
(Fall/Winter 2005) 14(2) Competition 47
Kieff FS, ‘Property Rights and Property Rules for Commercializing Inventions’ (2001) 85 Minn L Rev 697
Kitch EW, ‘The Nature and Function of the Patent System’ (1977) 20(2) J L & Econ 265
Krier JE, ‘Evolutionary Theory and the Origin of Property Rights’ (2009) 95 Cornell Law Review 139 Lao M, ‘Networks, Access, and “Essential Facilities”: From Terminal Railroad to Microsoft’ (2009) 62
SMU L Rev 557
Layne-Farrar A et al, ‘Payments and Participation: The Incentives to Join Cooperative Standard Setting Efforts’ (2014) 23(1) J Econ & Management Strategy 25
Lee P, ‘The Evolution of Intellectual Infrastructure’ (2008) 83 Washington L Rev 39 Lee RS, ‘Competing Platforms’ (2014) 23(3) J Econ and Management Strategy 507
Lemley M and Shapiro C, ‘A Simple Approach to Setting Reasonable Royalties for Standard-Essential Patents (2013) 28(2) BTLJ 1135
Lemley MA and Frischmann BM, ‘Spillovers’ (2007) 100(2) Columbia L J 101
Lemley MA and Shapiro C, ‘Probabilistic Patents’ (2005) 19(2) J Econ Perspectives 75
Lemley MA, ‘Economics of Improvement in Intellectual Property Law’ (1996) 75 Texas L Rev 989 Lemley MA, ‘Ignoring Patents’ (2008) 19 Mich St Law Rev 19
Lemley MA, ‘Intellectual Property Rights and Standard Setting Organizations’ (2002) 90 CLR 1889 Lemley MA, ‘Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office’ (2001) 95(4) Nw U L Rev 1
Lemley MA, ‘Taking the Regulatory Nature of IP Seriously’ (2014) 92 Texas L Rev 107 Lemley MA, ‘The Regulatory Turn in IP’ (2012) 36 Harv J L & Pub Pol 109
Lerner J and Tirole J, ‘The Economics of Technology Sharing: Open Source and Beyond’ (2005) 19(2) J Econ Perspectives 99
Lessig L, ‘Reply: Re-Marking the Progress in Frischmann’ (2005) 89 Minn L Rev 1031
Liebowitz SJ and Margolis SE, ‘Path Dependence, Lock-In, and History’ (1995) 11(1) J L, Econ & Org 205
Lim D, ‘ Misconduct in Standard-Setting: The Case For Patent Misuse’ (2011) 51(4) IDEA: J L & Tech 557
Lim D, ‘Standard Essential Patents, Trolls and the Smartphone Wars: Triangulating the End Game’
(2014) 119 Penn State Environ L Rev 1
Lipsey R, Carlaw K and Bekar C, ‘Economic Transformations: General Purpose Technologies and Long-Term Economic Growth’ (2006) 59(4) Econ Hist Rev 881
Loewenberg S, ‘The Bayh–Dole Act: A Model For Promoting Research Translation?’ (2009) 3 Molecular Oncology 91
Long C, ‘Patent Signals’, (2002) 69 U Chicago L Rev 625
Madison MJ, Frischmann BM and Strandburg KJ, ‘Constructing Commons in the Cultural Environment’
(2010) 95(4) Cornell L Rev 657
Magliocca GN, ‘Blackberries and Barnyards: Patent Trolls and the Perils of Innovation’, (2007) 82 Notre Dame L Rev 1809
Mair C, ‘Openness, Intellectual Property and Standardization in the European ICT Sector’ (2012) 2(2) IP Theory 52
Mair C, ‘Taking Technological Infrastructure Seriously : Standards, Intellectual Property and Open Access’ (2016) 32 Utrecht J Intl & Eur L 59
Maurer S and Scotchmer S, ‘The Essential Facilities Doctrine: The Lost Message of Terminal Railroad’
(2014) 5 California L Rev Circuit 247
McAdams R, ‘Beyond the Prisoner’s Dilemma: Coordination, Game Theory and the Law’ (2009) 82(2) South Calif L Rev173
Merges R and Nelson R, ‘On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope’ (1990) Columbia L Rev 839 Merges RP and Kuhn JM, ‘An Estoppel Doctrine for Patented Standards’ (2009) 97(1) Cali L Rev 1
Michael Heller, ‘The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition Form Marx to Markets’
(1998) 1111(3) Harv L Rev 621
Moser P and Nicholas T, ‘Was Electricity a General Purpose Technology?’ (2004) 94(2) Amer Econ Rev 388
Mossoff A, ‘The Rise and Fall of the First American Patent Thicket: The Sewing Machine War of the 1850s’ (2009) 53(1) Arizona L Rev 165
Mowery DC and Sampat BH, ‘The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University–Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?’ (2005) 30(1) J Tech Transfer 115
Mueller JM, ‘Patent Misuse Through The Capture of Industry Standards’ (2002) 17 Berkeley Tech LJ 623
Nicolaides P, ‘The Economics of Subsidies for R&D: Implications for Reform of EU State Aid Rules’
(2013) 48(2) Intereconomics 99
Opi SB, ‘The Application of the Essential Facilities Doctrine to Intellectual Property Licensing in the European Union and the United States: Are Intellectual Property Rights Still Sacrosanct?’ (2001) 11(2) Fordham Intellectual Property and Media and Entertainment LJ 409
Ostrom E, ‘Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems (2010) 100 American Econ Rev 1
Ouellette LL, ‘Do Patents Disclose Useful Information?’ (2012) 25(2) Harv J Law & Tech
Page WH and Childers SJ, ‘Antitrust, Innovation, and Product Design in Platform Markets: Microsoft and Intel’ (2012) 78 Antitrust LJ 363
Petit N, ‘Injunctions for FRAND-Pledged SEPs: The Quest for an Appropriate Test of Abuse under Article 102 TFEU’ (2013) 9(3) Eur Comp J 677
Petrovcic U, ‘Patent Hold-Up and the Limits of Common Law: A Trans-Atlantic Perspective’ (2013) 50(5) CMLR 1363
Rantanen J, ‘Slaying the Troll: Litigation as an Effective Strategy Against Patent Threats’ (2003) 23(1) Santa Clara Computer and High Tech LJ 159
Ratliff JD and Rubinfeld DL ‘The Use and Threat of Injunctions in the Rand Context’ (2013) J Comp.
L & Econ 1
Reilly G, ‘Completing the Picture Of Uncertain Patent Scope’ (2014) 91(5) Washington U L Rev 1353 Ridyard D, ‘Essential Facilities and the Obligation to Supply Competitors under the UK and EC
Competition Law’ (1996) 17 ECLR 438
Ritter C, ‘Refusal to Deal and “Essential Facilities”: Does Intellectual Property Require Special Deference Compared to Tangible Property’ (2005) 28(3) World Competition: L & Econ Rev 281
Rochet JC and Tirole J, ‘Platform Competition in Two-sided Markets’ (2003) 1(4) J Eur Econ Assn 990 Roin BN, ‘Intellectual Property versus Prizes: Reframing the Debate’ (2013) 81 U Chicago L Rev 999 Romer P ‘Should the Government Subsidize Supply or Demand in the Market for Scientists and
Engineers’ (2001) Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol 1
Rose C, ‘The Comedy of the Commons: Commerce, Custom, and Inherently Public Property’ (1986) 53(3) U Chicago L Rev 711
Rose CM, ‘Romans, Roads, and Romantic Creators: Traditions of Public Property in the Information Age’ (2003) 66 L & Contemp Problems 89
Rubin EL, ‘The Illusion of Property as a Right and Its Reality as an Imperfect Alternative’ (2013) Wisconsin L Rev 573
Schmidt C, ‘Negotiating the RNAi Patent Thicket’ (2007) 25 Nature Biotechnology 273
Selgin G and Turner JL, ‘Strong Steam, Weak Patents, or the Myth of Watt’s Innovation-Blocking Monopoly, Exploded’ (2011) 54(4) J Law & Econ 841
Shapiro C, ‘Injunctions, Hold-Up, and Patent Royalties’ (2010) 17 ALER 280 Sidak JG and Lipsky Jr A B, ‘Essential Facilities’ (1999) 51(5) Stan L Rev 1187
Sidak JG, ‘Holdup, Royalty Stacking, and the Presumption of Injunctive Relief for Patent Infringement:
A Reply to Lemley and Shapiro’ (2007) 92 Minn L Rev 714
Sidak SG ‘A FRAND Contract’s Intended Third-Party Beneficiary’, 1 CRiteRion J. on innovation 1001 (2016).
Simcoe TS, ‘Private and Public Approaches To Patent Hold-Up in Industry Standard Setting’ (2012) 57 Antitrust Bulletin 59
Solow RM, ‘Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function’ (1957) 39(3) Rev Econ & Stats 312
Somaya D, Teece D and Wakeman S, ‘Innovation in Multi-Invention Contexts: Mapping Solutions to Technological and Intellectual Property Complexity’ (2011) 53(4) Cal Management Rev 47 Stiglitz JE, ‘Economic Foundations of Intellectual Property Rights’ (2008) 57(1776) Duke LJ 1693 Subramanian S, ‘EU Obligation to the TRIPS Agreement: EU Microsoft Decision’ (2010) 21(4) Eur J
Intl L 997
Swanson DG and Baumol WJ, ‘Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory (RAND) Royalties, Standards Selection, and Control of Market Power’ (2005) 73(1) Antitrust LJ 1
Sweeney M, ‘Correcting Bayh-Dole’s Inefficiencies for the Taxpayer’ (2012) 10(3) Nw J Tech & IP 295 Tassey G, ‘Standardization in Technology-Based Markets’ (2000) 29(4–5) Res Pol’y 587
Teece DJ, ‘Profiting From Technological Innovation: Implications For Integration, Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy’ (1986) 15(6) Research Policy 285
Thomas JR, ‘The Question Concerning Patent Law and Pioneer Inventions’ (1995) 10 Berkeley Techn LJ 35
Turney J, ‘Defining the Limits of the EU Essential Facilities Doctrine on Intellectual Property Rights:
The Primacy of Securing Optimal Innovation’ (2005) 3(2) Nw J Tech & IP 179
Tushman ML and Anderson P, ’Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments (1986) 31(3) Administrative Science Quarterly 439
Tushman ML, ‘Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change’ (1990) 35 Administrative Science Quarterly 604
Ullrich H, ‘Expansionist Intellectual Property Protection and Reductionist Competition Rules: A TRIPS Perspective’ (2004) 7(2) J Intl Econ 401
Vertinksky LS, ‘Making Room for Cooperative Innovation’ (2014) 41 FSU L Rev 1067
Vesterdorf B, ‘Theories of Self-Preferencing and Duty to Deal - Two Sides of the Same Coin?’ (2015) 1(1) Competition Law and Policy Debate 4
von Graevenitz G, Wagner S and Harhoff D, ‘Incidence and Growth of Patent Thickets: The Impact of Technological Opportunities and Complexity’ (2013) 61(3) J Indus Econ 521
Wagner RP, ‘Information Wants to Be Free: Intellectual Property and the Mythologies of Control’
(2003) 103 Columbia L Rev 995
Wils WPJ, ‘The Judgment of the EU General Court in Intel and the So-Called “More Economic Approach” to Abuse of Dominance’ (2014) 37(4) World Comp Law Econ Rev 405
Wu T, ‘Intellectual Property, Innovation, and Decentralized Decisions’ (2005) 92(1) Virginia L Rev 123
B. Online
Baker JB, ‘“Dynamic Competition” Does Not Excuse Monopolization’ (2008) Social Science Research Network Research Paper 1285223 <http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1285223> accessed 14 October 2016
Bessen J and Maskin E, ‘Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation’ (2000) MIT Department of Economics Working Paper No 00-01 <http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=206189> accessed 14 October 2016
Kattan J and Wood C, ‘Standard-Essential Patents and the Problem of Hold-Up’ (2013) Social Science Research Network, <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2370113> accessed 14 October 2016
Merges RP, ‘From Medieval Guilds to Open Source Software: Informal Norms, Appropriability Institutions, and Innovation’ (2005) Social Science Research Network <http://www.ssrn.com/
abstract=661543> accessed 14 October 2016
Petit N, ‘Theories of Self-Preferencing Under Article 102 TFEU: A Reply to Bo Vesterdorf’ (2015) Social Science Research Network1 <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2592253>
accessed 14 October 2016
Tansey R, Neal M and Carroll R, ‘Patent Aggression: High Risk Intellectual Property Strategies in the Semiconductor Industries’, (2004) 4 Businessperspectives.org 80 <http://businessperspectives.
org/journals_free/ppm/2004/PPM_EN_2004_04_Tansey.pdf> accessed 14 October 2016
IV. CASES
A) European Commission Decisions
Intel (Case COMP/37.990) Commission Decision [2009] OJ C-227/13
Microsoft/Skype (Case COMP/M.6281) Commission Decision [2011] OJ C-341/02 Motorola (Case AT/39.985) Commission Decision [2014] OJ C-344/6
Rambus (Case COMP/38.636) Commission Decision [2009] OJ C-30/17 Samsung (Case AT/39.939) Commission Decision [2014] OJ C-350/8 Sealink v. B&I (Case IV/34.174) Commission Decision [1992] OJ L378
Sealink/B&I HolyHead: Interim Measures (Case IV/34.689) Commission Decision 94/19/EC [1992] OJ L15/8
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)
Judgements of the General Court (GC)
Case T-321/05 AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca Plc v European Commission [2010] 266 Case T-158/00 ARD v Commission [2003] ECR II-3825
Case T-167/08 Microsoft Corp v Commission (27 June 2012) ECLI:EU:T:2012:323.
Case T-201/04 Microsoft Corp v Commission [2007] ECR II-3601.
Case T-286/09 Intel v Commission (12 June 2014)
European Court of Justice (ECJ)
Case 238/87 AB Volvo v Erik Veng (UK) Ltd [1988] ECR 6211
Case C-170/13 Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp & ZTE Deutschland GmbH (CJEU, 16 July 2015) Case C-26/75 General Motors v Commission (26/75) [1975] ECR 1367
Joined Cases C-115/97 Brentjes [1999] [ECR I-6025
Case 24/67 Parke, Duvis & Company v Probel and others [1968] ECR 55
Case 27/76 United Brands Company and United Brands Continental BV v Commission of the European Communities [1978] ECR 207
Case 322/81 Michelin v Commission [1983] ECR 3461
Case C-418/01 IMS Health GmbH & Co. OHG v NDC Health GmbH & Co. KG [2004] ECR I-5039 Case C-52/09 Konkurrensverket v TeliaSonera Sverige AB [2011] ECR I-0527
Case C-7/97 Oscar Bronner GmbH & Co.KG v Mediaprint Zeitungs-und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG and Others [2008] ECR I-7794
Joined Case C-241 & Case 242/91P Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE) and Independent Television Publications Ltd (ITP) v Commission of the European Communities (Magill TV Guides) Commission Decision [1995]
ECR I-743
B. Domestic Jurisdictions
Germany
General Instrument Corp v Microsoft Deutschland GmbH Regional Court of Mannheim, 2nd Civil Division, 2 May 2012, file no. 2 O 240/11’)
Orange Book Case (2009) KZR 39/06 (GFCJ)
SISVEL Wireless Patent Portfolio v. Qingdao Haier Group, Case 4a O 93/14, Düsseldorf Regional Court (3 November 2015)
England
Unwired Planet International Ltd. v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., [2017] EWHC 711 (5 April 2017)
United States of America: Supreme Court of the United States Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, (2014) No 13-298 eBay Inc. v MercExchange L.L.C, 547 U.S. 388
(
2006)United States v. Terminal R.R Ass’n of St Louis, 224 U.S. 383 (1912) Verizon v Trinko,
540 U.S. 398
(2004)United States of America: Federal District Courts Apple Inc. v Motorola Inc., No 12-1548 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Berkey Photo Inc v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263 (2d Cir. 1979) Georgia-Pacific Corp. v United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (1971) MCI Commc’ns Corp. v AT&T Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1132–33 (7th Cir. 1983)
Negotiated Data Solutions LLC, No. C-4234, 2008 WL 4407246, at *1 (F.T.C. Sept. 22, 2008).
V. DOMESTIC LAW
Germany
Germany, Patentgesetz, 16 December 1980
<http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=401424> accessed 14 October 2016.
VI. TREATIES/CONVENTIONS/RESOLUTIONS
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union [2008] OJ C115/13
European Patent Convention, art 52. <https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/
epc/2016/e/ar52.html> accessed 14 October 2016
Directives
European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/24/EC of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs, OJ 111/16, 5.5.2009
European Parliament And Council Directive 2002/19/EC Of 7 March 2002 On Access To, And Interconnection Of, Electronic Communications Networks And Associated Facilities, OJ L 108, 24.4.2002
European Parliament And Council Directive 98/44/EC Of 6 July 1998 On The Legal Protection Of Biotechnological Inventions, OJ L 213, 30.7.1998
European Parliament And Council Directive 2001/83/EC Of 6 November 2001 On The Community Code Relating To Medicinal Products For Human Use, OJ L 311, 28.11.2001
European Parliament And Council Directive 2001/29 Of 22 May 2001 On The Harmonisation Of Certain Aspects Of Copyright And Related Rights In The Information Society, OJ L 167, 22.6.2001
VII. EUROPEAN COMMISSION GUIDELINES/REGULATIONS
Commission Communication ‘Guidance on the Commission’s Enforcement Priorities in Applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to Abusive Exclusionary Conduct By Dominant Undertaking’, OJ C-45/02 2009
Commission Notice ‘Guidelines on the Effect on Trade Concept Contained in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty’, OJ C-101/81 2004
Commission Communication ‘Framework for State aid for research and development and innovation’, OJ C-198/01 2014
Commission, ‘Unbundled Access to the Local Loop: Enabling the Competitive Provision of a Full Range of Electronic Communication Services Including Broadband Multimedia and High-Speed Internet’ COM(2000) 417/EC
Commission, ‘Guidelines on the Applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to Horizontal Co-operation Agreements’ [2011] OJ C-11/1
Communication from the Commission Guidelines on the Application of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to Technology Transfer Agreements, OJ C 89 28.4.2014 Commission Regulation (EU) No 316/2014 Of 21 March 2014 On The Application Of Article 101(3) Of
The Treaty On The Functioning Of The European Union To Categories Of Technology Transfer Agreements, OJ L 93, 28.3.2014
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 of The European Parliament and Of The Council of 11 December 2013 Laying Down The Rules For Participation And Dissemination In “Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme For Research And Innovation (2014-2020), OJ L 347 20.12.2013
VIII. COMMISSION AGREEMENT
Commission, H2020 Programme AGA – Annotated Model Grant Agreement (1 July 2016)
<http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/amga/h2020-amga_
en.pdf> accessed 14 October 2016
IX. EUROPEAN COMMISSION DOCUMENTS
Commission, ‘Framework For State Aid For Research and Development and Innovation’
(Communication) C(2014) 3282
Commission, ‘Factsheet: Horizon 2020 Budget’ (25 November 2013) <http://ec.europa.eu/research/
horizon2020/pdf/press/fact_sheet_on_horizon2020_budget.pdf>
CORDIS, ‘A Framework For Musculoskeletal Robot Development’ (MYOROBOTICS –FP7- ICT-2011-7) <http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/102206_en.html> accessed 13 October 2016 CORDIS, ‘FP7:FET Proactive Initiative: NANO-SCALE ICT DEVICES AND SYSTEMS’, <http://
cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/fet-proactive/nanoict_en.html> accessed 13 October 2016
Mario Cisneros, ‘EU State Aid Policy: A Model to Assess Intellectual Property Rights and Knowledge Dissemination in R&D Cooperation’ (European Commission 2014) <http://ec.europa.eu/
competition/consultations/2013_state_aid_rdi/cisneros_mario_en.pdf> accessed last 4 August 2016
X. LETTERS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
Letter from Article 29 Data Protection Working Party to Mr. Larry Page, CEO of Google Inc. (23 September 2014), Ref. Ares(2014)3113072 -23/09/2014 <http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data- protection/article-29/documentation/other-document/files/2014/20140923_letter_on_google_
privacy_policy.pdf>
XI. PRESS RELEASES
Commission, ‘Antitrust Decisions on Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) - Motorola Mobility and Samsung Electronics - Frequently Asked Questions’ (29 April 2014) Press Release MEMO/14/322. 2014. Web. 14 October 2016
Commission, ‘Antitrust: Commission Accepts Commitments From Rambus Lowering Memory Chip Royalty Rates’ (9 December 2009) Press Release IP/09/1897. 2009. Web. 14 October 2016
Commission, ‘Antitrust: Commission Closes Formal Proceedings Against Qualcomm’ (24 November 2009) Press Release MEMO/09/516. 2009. Web. 14 October 2016
Commission, ‘Antitrust: Commission Finds that Motorola Mobility Infringed EU Competition Rules by Misusing Standard Essential Patents’ (29 April 2014) Press Release IP/14/489. 2014. Web. 14 October 2016 Commission, ‘Antitrust: Commission Initiates Formal Investigation against Qualcomm’ (1 October 2007) Press
Release MEMO/07/389. 2007. Web. 14 October 2016
Commission, ‘Antitrust: Commission Sends Statement of Objections to Google on Comparison Shopping Service;
Opens Separate Formal Investigation on Android’ (15 April 2015) Press Release IP/15/4780. 2015. Web.
14 October 2016
Commission, ‘Antitrust: Commission Sends Statement of Objections to Google on Comparison Shopping Service’
(15 April 2015) Press Release MEMO/15/4781. 2015.Web. 14 October 2016
Commission, ‘Antitrust: Commission Sends Statement of Objections to Google on Android Operating System and Applications’ (20 April 2015) Press Release IP-16-1492. 2015.Web. 4 January 2016
Commission, ‘Antitrust: Commission Sends Statement of Objections to Google on Android Operating System and Applications – Factsheet’ (20 April 2016) Press Release MEMO-16-1484. 2016.Web. 14 October 2016 Commission, ‘Antitrust: Commission Welcomes IPCom’s Public FRAND Declaration’ (10 December 2009) Press
Release MEMO/09/549. 2009. Web. 14 October 2016
Commission, ‘Being Open About Standards’ (10 June 2008) Press Release SPEECH-08-317.2008.Web. 14 October 2016
Commission, ‘Commission Concludes on Microsoft Investigation, Imposes Conduct Remedies and a Fine’ (24 March 2004) Press Release IP/04/382. 2004. Web. 14 October 2016
Commission, ‘Antitrust: Commission Takes Further Steps In Investigations Alleging Google’s Comparison Shopping And Advertising-Related Practices Breach EU Rules’ (14 July 2016) Press Release IP/16/2532.
Web. 14 October 2016
Commission, ‘Mergers: Commission Welcomes General Court Judgment in Microsoft/Skype Merger Case’ (11 December 2013) Press Release MEMO/13/1137. 2013. Web. 14 October 2016
Qualcomm, ‘Nokia and Qualcomm Enter into a New Agreement’ (24 June 2008) Press Release. 2008.
Web. 14 October 2016
XII. POLICY PAPERS / STATEMENTS
ECIS, ‘ECIS Statement on the Proposed New European Interoperability Framework’
(13 October 2010) <http://ecis.eu/documents/ECISStatementreEIF13.10.10.pdf> accessed 14 October 2016
ETSI, Resolution GSC-13/22, 23-25, (IPRWG) Intellectual Property Rights Policy September 2008.
ETSI Rules of Procedure, 5 April 2017 < http://www.etsi.org/images/files/IPR/etsi-ipr-policy.pdf>
European Telecommunications Standard Institute ETSI Rules of Procedure (19 November 2014) Art 15(6)
IETF IPR Policy, ‘Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology’ (March 2005) <http://www.ietf.
org/rfc/rfc3979.txt> accessed 14 October 2016
RedHat, ‘Red Hat’s Position on OOXML and Open Standards’<http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/
RedHatOOXMLPosition.pdf> accessed 14 October 2016
UK Cabinet ‘Procurement Policy Note – Use of Open Standards when specifying ICT requirements’.
Action Note 3/11 (31 January 2011) <http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/
resources/PPN%203_11%20Open%20Standards.pdf> accessed 14 October 2016
W3C Patent Policy (5 February 2004) <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/>
accessed 14 October 2016
XIII. LETTERS
Business Software Alliance (composed of, inter alia, Microsoft, Apple, Adobe) in the context of the revision of the European Interoperability Framework: (Brussels, 7 October 2010) <http://fsfe.org/
projects/os/bsa-letter-ec.pdf> accessed 14 October 2016
XIV. USA STATE DOCUMENTS & POLICY PAPERS
US Department of Justice and US Patent & Trademark Office, ‘Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments’ (8 January 2013) 6
<http://www.uspto.gov/about/offices/ogc/Final_DOJ-PTO_Policy_Statement_on_FRAND_
SEPs_1-8-13.pdf> accessed 14 October 2016
Machlup, Fritz An Economic Review of the Patent System, Study No.15 of Committee on Judiciary, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (Comm. Print 1958).
XV. MAGAZINE ARTICLES
Berners-Lee T, ‘Long Live the Web: a Call For Continued Open Standards and Neutrality’ (Scientific American, 22 November 2010) <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=long-live-the-web>
accessed 14 October 2016
Tang, G ‘Intel and the x86 Architecture: A Legal Perspective’, (Jolt Digest 2011) http://jolt.law.harvard.
edu/digest/patent/intel-and-the-x86-architecture-a-legal-perspective-2> accessed 14 October 2016
XVI. CONFERENCE PAPERS/LECTURES
Damien Geradin, ‘Abusive Pricing in an IP Licensing Context: An EC Competition Law Analysis’ (12th Annual Competition Law and Policy Workshop, Florence, June 2007)
Freund N and Ruhle EO, ‘The Evolution from Sector-Specific Regulation Towards Competition Law in EU Telecom Markets from 1997 to 2011 - Different Effects in Practical Implementation’
(22ndEuropean ITS Conference, Budapest, September 2011) <https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/
itse11/52208.html> accessed 14 October 2016
Gawer A, Towards a General Theory of Technological Platforms’ (DRUID Summer Conference, 16 June 2010)
Giuri P and Torrisi S, ‘Cross-Licensing, Cumulative Inventions and Strategic Patenting’ (5 th Annual Conference EPIP Association, Maastricht, 20-21 September 2010)
Lang JT, ‘The Principle of Essential Facilities in European Community Law- The Position since Bronner’
(Notes for lecture, Copenhagen, September 2000)
Russell AL, ‘The W3C and its Patent Policy Controversy: A Case Study of Authority and Legitimacy in Internet Governance’ TPRC 2003: 31st Conference on Communication, Information, and Internet Policy, Alexandria, Virginia, 20 September 2013 <http://www.arussell.org/papers/alr-tprc2003.
pdf> accessed on 19 July 2011
Wright JD, ‘SSOs, Frand, and Antitrust: Lessons From the Economics of Incomplete Contracts’ (Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, Arlington, 12 September 2013) <https://www.ftc.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/public_statements/ssos-frand-and-antitrust-lessons-economics- incomplete-contracts/130912cpip.pdf> accessed 14 October 2016
XVII. DISCUSSION PAPERS
DG Competition Discussion Paper on the Application of Article 82 to Exclusionary Abuses (Brussels, December 2005)
Geradin D, Standardization and Technological Innovation: Some Reflections on Ex-Ante Licensing, FRAND, and the Proper Means to Reward Innovators (TILEC Discussion Paper, DP 2006-017)
Siebert R and Graevenitz GV, Does Licensing Resolve Hold Up in the Patent Thicket ? (LMU Discussion Paper 2008-01, January 2008)
XVIII. WORKING PAPERS
Acemoglu D and Cao DY, ‘Innovation by Entrants and Incumbents’ (2010) National Bureau of Economic Research NBER Working Papers 16411, <http://www.nber.org/papers/w16411.pdf> accessed 14 October 2016
Bekkers R and Updegrove A, ‘A Study of IPR Policies and Practices of a Representative Group of Standards Setting Organizations Worldwide’ (2012) National Academies of Science <http://doi.
org/10.2139/ssrn.2333445> accessed 14 October 2016
Calabresi G and Melamed AD ‘Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral’ (1972). Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 1983.
Christ JP and Slowak AP ‘Why Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD is not VHS vs. Betamax: The Co-evolution of Standard-setting Consortia’, Promotionsschwerpunkt Globalisierung und Beschaeftigung No.
29/2009.
Domingos P, ‘A Few Useful Things to Know about Machine Learning’ (2012) <http://homes.
cs.washington.edu/~pedrod/papers/cacm12.pdf> accessed 14 October 2016
Dreyfuss RC, ‘Double or Nothing: Technology Transfer Under the Bayh-Dole Act’ (2013) NYU Law and Economics Research Paper No. 13 <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256056032_
Double_or_Nothing_Technology_Transfer_Under_the_Bayh-Dole_Act> accessed 14 October 2016
Duch-Brown N, García-Quevedo J and Montolio D, ‘The Link between Public Support and Private R&D Effort: What Is the Optimal Subsidy?’ (2010) Institut d’Economica de Barcelona Working Papers 2011/12 <http://www.ieb.ub.edu/aplicacio/fitxers/2011/6/Doc2011-12.pdf> accessed 14 October 2016
Einer, E ‘The Failed Resurrection of the Single Monopoly Profit Theory’ (February 11, 2010). Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 10-16.
Epstein RA, ‘What Is So Special about Intangible Property? The Case for Intelligent Carryovers’ (2010) John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper No 524 <http://chicagounbound.
uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1301&context=law_and_economics> accessed 14 October 2016
Fackelmann CR, ‘Dynamic Efficiency Considerations in EC Merger Control: An Intractable Subject or a Promising Chance for Innovation’ (2006), University of Oxford, Centre for Competition Law and Policy Working Paper L-09/06 <https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/cclp_s._09-06.
pdf> accessed 14 October 2016
Frischmann BM and Marciano A, ‘Understanding the Problem of Social Cost’ (2014) Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No 435 <http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2445819> accessed on 14 October 2016
Galasso A, ‘Broad Cross-License Agreements in the Semiconductor Industry : Waiting to Persuade ?’
(2006) Job Market Paper 1 <http://www.webmeets.com/files/papers/EARIE/2007/6/galasso.pdf
> accessed 14 October 2016
Galetovic A, Haber S and Levine R, ‘Patent Holdup: Do Patent Holders Holdup Innovation?’ (2014) Hoover IP2 Working Paper Series No 14011 <http://hooverip2.org/wp-content/uploads/ip2- wp14011-paper.pdf> accessed 14 October 2016
Gallini N and Scotchmer S, ‘Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?’ (2001) University of California Economics Working Papers E01-303 < http://scholarship.law.berkeley.
edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3502&context=facpubs > accessed 14 October 2016
Geradin D, ‘The Necessary Limits To the Control of ‘Excessive Prices’ By Competition Authorities – A View From Europe’ (2007) Tilburg University Legal Studies Working Paper 8 <http://ssrn.com/
abstract=1022678> accessed 14 October 2016
Geradin D and Sadrak K ‘The EU Competition Law Fining System: A Quantitative Review of the Commission Decisions between 2000 and 2017’ (April 25, 2017). <https://ssrn.com/
abstract=2958317>
Ghosh, R.A ‘Clustering and Dependencies in Free/Open Source Software Development: Methodology and Tools’ (2002) Working Paper UNU MERIT available at http://www-siepr.stanford.edu/
programs/OpenSoftware_David/Ghosh.pdf>
Griliches Z, ‘The Search for R&D Spillovers’ (1991) NBER Working Papers <http://ideas.repec.org/p/
nbr/nberwo/3768.html> accessed 14 October 2016
Intel White Paper (2011) Why the European Commission’s Intel Decision is Wrong? <http://www.
intel.com/pressroom/legal/docs/EC_response092109.pdf> accessed 14 October 2016
Jaffe A, ‘Economic Analysis of Research Spillovers: Implications for the Advanced Technology Program’
(1996) Brandeis University and National Bureau of Economic Research <http://www.atp.nist.
gov/eao/gcr708.htm> accessed 14 October 2016
Langlois RN, ‘Technological Standards, Innovation, and Essential Facilities: Toward a Schumpeterian Post-Chicago Approach’ (1999) Economics Working Papers 199907 <http://digitalcommons.
uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1315&context=econ_wpapers> accessed 14 October 2016 Lemley MA, ‘Contracting Around Liability Rules’ (2012) Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working
Paper No 415, 113 <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1910284#%23> accessed 14 October 2016
Lerner J, ‘Brief of Public Knowledge: Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International and CLS Services Ltd.’ (2014) USC Legal Studies Research Papers Series No. 14-7 <http://ssrn.com/
abstract=24055> accessed 14 October 2016
Moore, AD ‘Intellectual Property and the Prisoner’s Dilemma: A Game Theory Justification of Copyrights, Patents, and Trade Secrets’ <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_
id=2825252>
Priest GL, ‘Rethinking Antitrust Law in an Age of Network Industries’ (2007) John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy Research Paper No. 352 < https://papers.ssrn.com/
sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1031166> accessed 14 October 2016
Schacht W, ‘The Bayh-Dole Act: Selected Issues in Patent Policy and the Commercialization of Technology’ (2012) Congressional Research Service <https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/
RL32076.pdf > accessed 14 October 2016
Wagner S, ‘Business Method Patents in Europe and Their Strategic Use: Evidence From Franking Device Manufacturers’ (2006) Munich School of Management, University of Munich Discussion Paper 2006-15 <https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/1265/1/Wagner_bmp.pdf> accessed 14 October 2016
Wu T, ‘Intellectual Property, Innovation, and Decision Architectures’ (2005) U Chicago Public Law
& Legal Theory Working Paper No. 97 <http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1155&context=public_law_and_legal_theory> accessed 14 October 2016
Zingales N, ‘Of Coffee Pods, Videogames, and Missed Interoperability: Reflections for EU Governance of the Internet of Things’ (2015) TILEC Discussion Paper No. 2015-026 <http://papers.ssrn.com/
abstract=2707570> accessed 14 October 2016 XVIII. UNPUBLISHED PAPERS
Bartlett, Jason R. and Contreras, Jorge L. ‘Rationalizing FRAND Royalties: Can Interpleader Save The Internet Of Things’ (2016) unpublished draft
Blind, Knut, The Influence of Companies’ Patenting Motives on their Standardization Strategies,” 2010, unpublished
Contreras, Jorge L. ‘A New Perspective on FRAND Royalties: Unwired Planet v. Huawei’ (2017) unpublished draft
Frischmann, Brett and Mark P McKenna, ‘Comparative Analysis of (Innovation) Failures and Institutions in Context’ (unpublished draft 2014)
XIX. THESES
Tim Pohlmann, ‘Six Essays on Patenting and Coordination in ICT Standardization’ (PhD Thesis, Technical University Berlin 2012)
XX. REPORTS
‘Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition’ (US Department of Justice & Federation Trade Commission 2007)
‘3D Printing: a Patent Overview Report’ (UK Intellectual Property Office, 2013) <https://www.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445232/3D_Printing_Report.pdf>
accessed 14 October 2016.
‘Competition and Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act (US Department of Justice 2008) < https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2009/05/11/236681.pdf
> accessed 14 October 2016
‘Pre-commercial Procurement of Innovation: A Missing Link in the European Innovation Cycle’
(March 2006) <ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/ict/docs/pcp/precommercial-procurement- of-innovation_en.pdf> accessed 14 October 2016
ARM Strategic Report 2015 <http://ir.arm.com/phoenix.zhtml%3Fc%3D197211%26p%3Dirol- reportsannual> accessed 14 October 2016.
Blind K et al., ‘Interaction Between Standards and Intellectual Property Rights’ (European Commission Joint Research Centre 2004)
Ghosh RA, ‘Open Standards and Interoperability Report: An Economic Basic for Open Standards’
(FLOSSPOLS MERIT University of Maastricht 2005)
Hall BH et al., ‘A Study of Patent Thickets’ (UK Intellectual Property Office, 2013) <https://www.gov.
uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/311234/ipresearch-thickets.pdf>
accessed 14 October 2016
Harhoff D et al., ‘The Strategic Use of Patents and Its Implications for Enterprise and Competition Policies (European Commission Report 8 July 2007)
IEEE, ‘IEEE Standards Association (IEEE-SA) Internet of Things (IoT) Ecosystem Study’ (2015) <http://
www.sensei-iot.org/PDF/IoT_Ecosystem_Study_2015.pdf> accessed 14 October 2016
Intel Annual Report, 2014 <http://www.intc.com/intel-annual-report/2014/index.html> accessed 14 October 2016
LexInnova, ‘Wireless Power: Patent landscape Analysis’, WIPO (LexInnova 2015) <http://www.wipo.
int/export/sites/www/patentscope/en/programs/patent_landscapes/documents/lexinnova_plr_
wireless_power.pdf> accessed 14 October 2016.
Swann GM P, ‘The Economics of Standardization: Final Report for Standards and Technical Regulations Directorate’ (Manchester Business School 11 December 2000),
Tuomi I, ‘The Future of Semiconductor Intellectual Property Architectural Blocks in Europe’ (JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, Economic Commission 2009)
Van Eecke P et al., ‘Monitoring and Analysis of Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Regimes and Their Use’ (European Commission DG Research 2009).
XXI. NEWSPAPER ARTICLES
‘Why Qualcomm’s Royalty Rate Will Continue To Decline’ (Forbes, 10 June 2014) <http://www.forbes.
com/sites/greatspeculations/2014/06/10/why-qualcomms-royalty-revenue-will-continue-to- decline/> accessed 14 October 2016
Agam Shah, ‘Intel, Via Settle All Patent Cases’ (Computerworld 8 April 2003) <http://www.
computerworld.com/article/2581013/technology-law-regulation/intel--via-settle-all-patent- cases.html> accessed 14 October 2016
Andy Updegrove, ‘Do Royalty-Free Standards Stifle Innovation?’(ConsortiumInfo, 4 March 2011<http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20110304122357355>
accessed 14 October 2016
Dana Hull and John Lippert, ‘Musk Says Tesla’s China Sales Fell, No Profit Until 2020’ (Bloomberg, 14 January 2015) <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-14/musk-says-tesla-s- china-sales-fell-no-profit-until-2020> accessed 14 October 2016
Dave Thier, ‘More Than $ 20 Billion Spent on Patent Litigation in Two Years’ (Forbes 8 October 2012)
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/10/08/in-two-years-the-smartphone-industry- has-spent-more-than-20-billion-spent-on-patent-litigation/> accessed 14 October 2016
Elizabeth Woyke, ‘Identifying The Tech Leaders In LTE Wireless Patents’ (Forbes, 21 September 2011)
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethwoyke/2011/09/21/identifying-the-tech-leaders-in-lte- wireless-patents/> accessed 14 October 2016
Jerry Hirsch, ‘Elon Musk’s Growing Empire is Fuled By $4.9 Billion in Government Subsidies’ (Los Angeles Times, 30 May 2015) <http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies- 20150531-story.html> accessed 14 October 2016
Nadia Khomami, ‘All Scientific Papers To Be Free By 2020 Under EU Proposals’ (The Guardian, 28 May 2016) <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/may/28/eu-ministers-2020-target-free- access-scientific-papers > accessed 14 October 2016
Ryan Smith, ‘Intel Settles With NVIDIA: More Money, Fewer Problems, No x86’ (ANANDTECH 10 January 2011) < http://www.anandtech.com/show/4122/intel-settles-with-nvidia-more-money- fewer-problems-no-x86> accessed 14 October 2016
Samuel Gibbs, ‘Facebook’s Privacy Policy Breaches European Law, Report Finds’ The Guardian (London, 23 February 2015) <http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/23/facebooks-privacy- policy-breaches-european-law-report-finds> accessed 14 October 2016
XXII. BLOGS
‘P2P: The Aftermath’ (The IPKat, 13 June 2011) <http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2011/06/p2p-aftermath.
html> accessed 14 October 2016
Carl Mair, ‘Is the Future Open for Web Video?’ (Leiden Law Blog, 21 March 2013) http://leidenlawblog.
nl/articles/is-the-future-open-for-web-video accessed 14 October 2016
Adam Messinger, ‘Introducing the Innovator’s Patent Agreement’ (Twitter, 17 April 2012) <https://
blog.twitter.com/2012/introducing-the-innovator-s-patent-agreement> accessed 14 October 2016
Trond Undheim, ‘Portugal’s New Interoperability Law’ (Oracle Blog, 13 April 2011), <http://blogs.
oracle.com/trond/entry/portugals_new_interoperability> accessed 14 October 2016
XXIII. WEBSITES
‘The Linux Foundation Announces Project to Build Real-Time Operating System for Internet of Things Devices’ (Link Foundation 17 February 2016) <http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/
announcements/2016/02/linux-foundation-announces-project-build-real-time-operating- system> accessed 14 October 2016
3PP Membership List, <http://webapp.etsi.org/3gppmembership/Results.asp?Member=ALL_
PARTNERS> accessed 14 October 2016
Alex Mayyasi, ‘Why is Science Behind a Paywall’ (Gizmodo, 13 May 2013) <http://gizmodo.com/why- is-science-behind-a-paywall-504647165> accessed 14 October 2016
Allseen Alliance, <https://allseenalliance.org/framework> accessed 14 October 2016
Android, ‘Android-x86 Open Source Project Announcement’ <http://www.android-x86.org/> accessed 14 October 2016
Android, ‘x86 Support’ <http://developer.android.com/ndk/guides/x86.html> accessed 14 October 2016
Android, <https://github.com/android> accessed 14 October 2016 Android, <https://source.android.com/> accessed 14 October 2016
Apple Developer, ‘Choosing a Membership’ <https://developer.apple.com/support/compare- memberships/> accessed 14 October 2016
ARM ‘ARM Processor Architecture’, < http://www.arm.com/products/processors/instruction-set- architectures/index.php> accessed 14 October 2016
ARM <http://www.arm.com/markets/mobile/qualcomm-snapdragon-chipset.php> accessed 14 October 2016
ARM, ‘Internet of Things’ <https://www.arm.com/markets/internet-of-things-iot.php> accessed 14 October 2016
ARM, ‘IoT System for Cortex-M’ <http://www.arm.com/products/internet-of-things-solutions/iot- subsystem-for-cortex-m.php> accessed 14 October 2016
ARM, <http://www.arm.com/products/buying-guide/licensing/processor-foundry-program.php>
accessed 14 October 2016
ARM,‘Cortex-A15 Processor’, <https://www.arm.com/products/processors/cortex-a/cortex-a15.
php> accessed 14 October 2016
ARM,‘Cortex-A9 Processor’, <http://www.arm.com/cortex-a9.php> accessed 14 October 2016 ARMmbed <https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbed-os> accessed 14 October 2016
ARMmbed <www.mbed.com> accessed 14 October 2016 ASML <https://www.asml.com/> accessed 14 October 2016 Berkman Klein Center,
<https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/luncheons/2009/11/bowles> accessed 14 October 2016
Bluetooth SIG <https://www.bluetooth.org/en-us> accessed 14 October 2016
Bluetooth, <https://www.bluetooth.org/apps/content/?doc_id=44514> accessed 14 October 2016 Bootstrap <http://getbootstrap.com/2.3.2/> accessed 14 October 2016
Cadence <https://www.cadence.com/en/default.aspx> accessed 14 October 2016
Charlie Demerjian, ‘How ARM Licenses it’s IP for Production’ (SemiAccurate 8 August 2013) <http://
semiaccurate.com/2013/08/08/how-arm-licenses-its-ip-for-production/> accessed 14 October 2016
Charlie Demerjian, ‘How ARM Licenses it’s IP for Production’ (SemiAccurate 8 August 2013) <http://
semiaccurate.com/2013/08/08/how-arm-licenses-its-ip-for-production/> accessed 14 October 2016
Charlie Osborne, ‘Toyota Pushes Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars With Open Patent Portfolio’ (ZDNet, 6 January 2015) <http://www.zdnet.com/article/toyota-pushes-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-with- open-patent-portfolio/>
Cisco, ‘Internet of Things’ <http://blogs.cisco.com/wp-content/uploads/internet_of_things_
infographic_3final.jpg> accessed 14 October 2016
Creative Commons <https://creativecommons.org/> accessed 14 October 2016
CrimsonRayne, ‘Why PS4 and Xbox One Moved to X86-64’ (RedgamingTech 20 September 2013)
<http://www.redgamingtech.com/why-ps4-and-xbox-one-moved-to-x86-64/> accessed 14 October 2016
DARPA, ‘Open Catalog’ <http://opencatalog.darpa.mil/> accessed 14 October 2016 DARPA, ‘Our Research’ <http://www.darpa.mil/our-research> accessed 14 October 2016
Electronic Frontier Foundation, ‘Oracle v Google’ <https://www.eff.org/cases/oracle-v-google>
accessed 14 October 2016
Elon Musk, ‘All Our Patent Are Belong To You’ (TESLA, 12 June 2014) <https://www.tesla.com/blog/
all-our-patent-are-belong-you?> accessed 14 October 2016
Fsfe, ‘Transcript of Richard Stallman at the 2nd International GPLv3 Conference’ (21 April 2006) <http://
fsfe.org/projects/gplv3/fisl-rms-transcript.en.html#liberty-or-death> accessed 14 October 2016 GitHub <https://github.com/> accessed 14 October 2016
Global Semiconductor Alliance, ‘Collaborative Innovation in the Global Semiconductor Industry’<
http://www.gsaglobal.org/gsa-resources/reports/collaborative-innovation-in-the-global- semiconductor-industry/> accessed 14 October 2016
Google, ‘How to Use the Google Play Developer Console’ <http://support.google.com/googleplay/
android-developer/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=113468> accessed 14 October 2016
Google, ‘Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge’ <https://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/pledge/>
accessed 14 October 2016
Lawrence Latif, ‘Intel Claims Its Atom Chip Can Run 95 per cent of Android Applications’ (The Inquirer 6 June 2012)
<http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2182314/intel-claims-atom-chip-run-cent-android- applications> accessed 14 October 2016
IDC, ‘Smartphone OS Market Share, 2016 Q2’ <http://www.idc.com/prodserv/smartphone-os- market-share.jsp> accessed 14 October 2016
IEEE Standards Association, ‘IEEE Enhances Standards Patent Policy to Permit Fuller Disclosure on Licensing’ (BusinessWire, 30 April 2007) <http://www.businesswire.com/news/
home/20070430006298/en/IEEE-Enhances-Standards-Patent-Policy-Permit-Fuller#.
U7msxxYeVuY> accessed 14 October 2016
IEEE <http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/materials/5-commandments> accessed 14 October 2016
Indiworks, ‘H.264 List of Shame: All the Patent Holders’ <http://indiworks.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/
h-264-list-of-shame-all-the-patent-holders/> accessed 14 October 2016
Intel, ‘Architecture Specification White Paper Internet of Things’ <http://www.intel.com/content/
www/us/en/internet-of-things/white-papers/iot-platform-reference-architecture-paper.html>
accessed 14 October 2016
Intel, ‘NDK Android Application Porting Methodologies’ (27 November 2013) <http://software.intel.
Intel, ‘Smartphones For the Speed of Life’ <http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/smartphones/
smartphones.html> accessed 14 October 2016 Intel, ‘The Tick-Tock Model’,
<http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/silicon-innovations/intel-tick-tock-model-general.
html> accessed 14 October 2016
Intel, ‘Why the European Commission’s Intel Decision is Wrong’, <http://www.intel.com/pressroom/
legal/docs/EC_response092109.pdf> accessed 14 October 2016
Intel, <http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/embedded/products/quark/overview.html>
accessed 14 October 2016
Intel, <http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/atom/atom-processor.html> accessed 14 October 2016
ISO, ‘ISO/IEC 26300’ (1 December 2006) < http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=43485>
accessed 14 October 2016
Jack Wallen, ‘Android is Winning the Platform Race’ (TechRepublic 11 August 2014) <http://www.
techrepublic.com/article/android-is-winning-the-platform-race/> accessed 14 October 2016 JFTC, ‘Guidelines for the Use of Intellectual Property Under the Antimonopoly Act’ <http://www.jftc.
go.jp/en/pressreleases/yearly-2015/July/150708.files/Attachment1.pdf> accessed 14 October 2016
Jim Turley, ‘The Business of Making Semiconductors’ (InformIT, 28 maRCH 2003) <http://www.
informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=31338&seqNum=4> accessed 14 October 2016
Joe Mullin, ‘Google Beats Oracle – Android Makes “Fair Use” of Java APIs” (arsTechnica, 27 May 2016)
<http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/google-wins-trial-against-oracle-as-jury-finds- android-is-fair-use/> accessed 14 October 2016
Lawrence Latif, ‘Intel Claims Its Atom Chip Can Run 95 per cent of Android Applications’(The Inquirer 6 June 2012) < http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2182314/intel-claims-atom-chip- run-cent-android-applications> accessed 14 October 2016
LinuxContainers <https://linuxcontainers.org/> accessed 14 October 2016
Mark Ballard, ‘International Alarm Rings Over UK ICT Policy’ (ComputerWeekly 13 May 2011) <http://
www.computerweekly.com/blogs/public-sector/2011/05/international-alarm-rings-over.html>
accessed 14 October 2016
Micah Singleton, ‘Lenovo’s P90 is the First Smartphone with 64-bit Intel Atom Processor’ (The Verge 5 January 2015) <http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/5/7490143/lenovo-ces-2015-p90-vibe-x2- pro-vb10-intel-atom> accessed 14 October 2016
Moor Insights & Strategy, ‘Is ARM the Secret Winner in the Human IOT Race?’ <http://www.
moorinsightsstrategy.com/is-arm-the-secret-winner-in-the-human-iot-race/> accessed 14 October 2016
NetMarketshare, ‘Analytics Without the Bots’ <http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system- market-share.aspx?qprid=8&qpcustomd=0> accessed 14 October 2016
Nick Farrell, ‘Apple and Google Spend More on Patents Than Innovation’ (Fudzilla 9 October 2012)
<http://www.fudzilla.com/news/29015-apple-and-google-spend-more-on-patents-than- innovation> accessed 14 October 2016
One-Blue, ‘Which companies are behind One-Blue? Can all essential patent holders join the One-Blue licensing program as licensor?’ <http://www.one-blue.com/licensors/> accessed 14 October 2016 Open Source Initiative, https://opensource.org/
OpenInventionNetwork, <http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/> accessed 14 accessed 14 October 2016
Patentgesetz von Venedig <http://www.wolfgang-pfaller.de/venedig.htm> accessed accessed 14 October 2016
Peter Bright, ‘Intel Retires “Tick-Tock” Development Model, Extending The Life of Each Process”
(arsTechnica 24 March 2016) http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/intel- retires-tick-tock-development-model-extending-the-life-of-each-process/ accessed 14 October 2016
Philip E Ross, ‘5 Commandments – The Rules Engineers Live By Weren’t Always Set in Stone’
(IEEE Spectrum 1 December 2003) http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/materials/5- commandments accessed 14 October 2016.
PHYS ORG, ‘DARPA Open Catalog Makes Agency-Sponsored Software and Publications Available To All’ (5 February 2014) <http://phys.org/news/2014-02-darpa-agency-sponsored-software.html>
accessed 14 October 2016
QT <http://www.qt.io/> accessed 14 October 2016
Qualcomm <https://www.qualcomm.com/products/snapdragon> accessed 14 October 2016 React <http://facebook.github.io/react/> accessed 14 October 2016
RedHat, <https://www.redhat.com/en> accessed 14 October 2016
Ronald Reagan, ‘Memorandum on Government Patent Policy’ (The American Presidency Project 18 February 1983) http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=40945 accessed 14 October 2016 SourceForge, <https://sourceforge.net/>
Statista, ‘Number of Apps Available in Leading App Stores as of June 2016’ <http://www.statista.com/
statistics/276623/number-of-apps-available-in-leading-app-stores/> accessed 14 October 2016 Tizen <https://www.tizen.org/> accessed 14 October 2016
TSMC <http://www.tsmc.com/> accessed 14 October 2016 Ubuntu <http://www.ubuntu.com/> accessed 14 October 2016
Usman Pirzada, ‘Intel Looking to Grant x86 ISA License to a Third Company - Chinese CPU Maker Spreadtrum’ (WCCFTECH) http://wccftech.com/intel-x86-isa-license-spreadtrum/ accessed 14 October 2016
Wikipedia, ‘Codec’ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec> accessed 14 October 2016
Wikipedia, ‘HiSilicon’ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiSilicon#Kirin_950> accessed 14 October 2016
